Project description:ObjectiveThe role of U300 glargine insulin for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been determined. We compared the safety and efficacy of glargine U300 versus glargine U100 in noncritically ill patients with T2D.Research design and methodsThis prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial included 176 patients with poorly controlled T2D (admission blood glucose [BG] 228 ± 82 mg/dL and HbA1c 9.5 ± 2.2%), treated with oral agents or insulin before admission. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus regimen with glargine U300 (n = 92) or glargine U100 (n = 84) and glulisine before meals. We adjusted insulin daily to a target BG of 70-180 mg/dL. The primary end point was noninferiority in the mean difference in daily BG between groups. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.ResultsThere were no differences between glargine U300 and U100 in mean daily BG (186 ± 40 vs. 184 ± 46 mg/dL, P = 0.62), percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dL (50 ± 27% vs. 55 ± 29%, P = 0.3), length of stay (median [IQR] 6.0 [4.0, 8.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0, 7.0] days, P = 0.06), hospital complications (6.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.42), or insulin total daily dose (0.43 ± 0.21 vs. 0.42 ± 0.20 units/kg/day, P = 0.74). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dL (8.7% vs. 9.5%, P > 0.99), but glargine U300 resulted in significantly lower rates of clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) compared with glargine U100 (0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.023).ConclusionsHospital treatment with glargine U300 resulted in similar glycemic control compared with glargine U100 and may be associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia.
Project description:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the pharmacokinetics (PK), bioequivalence and safety of generic sunitinib and its original product Sutent® in healthy Chinese subjects through a phase-I clinical trial. Methods: The study selected two groups of 24 healthy Chinese subjects in a 1:1 ratio through random allocation. Each participant received either 12.5 mg of sunitinib or Sutent® per cycle. A total of 15 different time points were employed for blood sample collection during each cycle. Furthermore, a comprehensive assessment of the drugs' safety was consistently maintained throughout the trial. Results: The average adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMR) (90% CI) for the primary PK parameters Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 97.04% (93.06%-101.19%), 98.45% (93.27%-103.91%) and 98.22% (93.15%-103.56%), respectively. The adjusted GMRs for essential pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters all met the requirements for bioequivalence, with values within the acceptable range of 80%-125%. In addition, the two drugs showed comparable results for the other PK parameters. These results indicate that the two drugs were bioequivalent. Furthermore, both drugs showed well safety. Conclusion: The research results proved that the PK and safety profiles of sunitinib in healthy Chinese subjects were comparable to those of Sutent®. These results advocate the clinical application of generic sunitinib as a potential alternative to original product Sutent® in the treatment of certain medical conditions.
Project description:IntroductionPegfilgrastim-cbqv (UDENYCA®; Coherus BioSciences, Redwood City, CA, USA) is a pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®; Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) biosimilar approved for administration by prefilled syringe (PFS). The recently approved pegfilgrastim-cbqv prefilled autoinjector (AI) was developed as another method of self-administration and to aid in-office use, providing flexibility in drug delivery. The objectives of the study were to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) to determine bioequivalence of the prefilled AI and the PFS for administration of pegfilgrastim-cbqv and to assess the safety profile of the prefilled AI.MethodsDuring this open-label, two-period crossover study, healthy adult males (N = 155) were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive a subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim-cbqv using a prefilled AI (n = 76) or a PFS (n = 79) in period 1. During period 2, participants received an injection using the other method. Primary PK and secondary PD parameters were calculated to assess the bioequivalence of the treatment as administered by the two delivery methods. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed.ResultsThe 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the PK and PD parameters were within the required range (80-125%), demonstrating bioequivalence between the pegfilgrastim-cbqv prefilled AI and PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 75% and 74.1% of participants in the prefilled AI and PFS groups, respectively. The most common TEAEs in both treatment groups were myalgia, bone pain, and headache. AI-device-related TEAEs were injection site pain (1.4%) and injection site bruising (0.7%). The incidence of antidrug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies was low and was similar in both treatment sequences.ConclusionsThe bioequivalence of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using a prefilled AI and a PFS was established. The safety, including immunogenicity profiles, of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using the prefilled AI and the PFS were similar, with no new safety findings.
Project description:BackgroundAs per the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) requirements, the quality and efficacy of generic drugs must be consistent with those of the innovator drug. We aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence and safety of generic metformin hydrochloride sustained-release (MH-SR) tablets (Boke®) developed by Beijing Wanhui Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., China and the innovator product metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets (Glucophage®-XR) manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, NY, in healthy Chinese volunteers.Materials and methodsWe performed a bioequivalence and safety assessment of MH-SR (500 mg/tablet) and Glucophage®-XR (500 mg/tablet) tablets in a randomized, open-label, two-period, two-sequence crossover, single-dose oral study in 48 healthy Chinese adult participants under fasting conditions (Chinese Clinical Trial Registration No. CTR20171306). The washout period was seven days. Bioequivalence (80.00-125.00%) was assessed using adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the area under the curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) for each component.ResultsThe 90% CIs of the test/reference preparation for key pharmacokinetic parameters were 97.36-108.30% for AUC0→t, 97.26-108.09% for AUC0→∞ and 96.76-111.37% for Cmax. No severe adverse events (AEs) were observed. However, 38 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred, including metabolic or nutritional conditions (n = 8), infections (n = 2), gastrointestinal conditions (n = 10) and abnormal inspection (n = 18). No significant difference was observed between MH-SR (23 ADRs, 10 participants) and Glucophage®-XR (15 ADRs, 12 participants) (p = .500). Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CIs of the main pharmacokinetic parameters were within the equivalence interval (80.00-125.00%).ConclusionsMH-SR (500 mg/tablet) and Glucophage®-XR (500 mg/tablet) were found to be bioequivalent and safe under fasting conditions in healthy Chinese participants. Thus, the market demand for MH-SR tablets (500 mg/tablet) can be met using the generic alternative.KEY MESSAGESGeneric MH-SR tablets (500 mg, Beijing Wanhui Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Beijing, China) and innovator MH-SR tablets (Glucophage®-XR, 500 mg, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, NY, USA) were bioequivalent and safe in healthy Chinese volunteers under single-dose administration and fasting conditions.The main goal of this study is to support an increase in the supply of MH-SR tablets in China by proving the efficacy and safety of a generic alternative.Although no sugar was administered in the BE trial of the MH-SR tablets under fasting conditions, no hypoglycaemic event occurred. The method used in this study is expected to serve as a reference for BE studies of different MH-SR formulations.
Project description:IntroductionThe glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide is approved as an oral formulation for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to confirm bioequivalence between a new, second-generation (2G) oral semaglutide formulation (1.5, 4 and 9 mg) and the initially approved first-generation (1G) formulation (3, 7 and 14 mg).MethodsThis was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, full replicate crossover study to confirm bioequivalence between 2G and 1G oral semaglutide formulations at steady-state (SS) in healthy participants (NCT05227196). Participants were recruited to three groups. In each group, participants were randomised to one of two alternating sequences comparing once-daily oral semaglutide treatment of 9 and 14 mg (group 1), 4 and 7 mg (group 2) or 1.5 and 3 mg (group 3) at SS. Treatment duration was 20 weeks, comprising four 5-week steady-state periods on alternating formulations. Repeated 24-h blood sampling at the end of each steady-state period supported pharmacokinetic analysis. Co-primary endpoints were area under the semaglutide plasma concentration-time curve during a dosing interval at SS (AUC0-24h,SS) and maximum semaglutide plasma concentration at SS (Cmax, 0-24h,SS). Bioequivalence for co-primary endpoints was assessed using European Medicines Agency (EMA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) criteria. Safety was monitored.ResultsA total of 222, 201 and 123 participants were recruited into groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The prespecified EMA, FDA and PMDA bioequivalence criteria were met for 2G versus 1G oral semaglutide for all three dose levels (1.5 vs 3 mg, 4 vs 7 mg and 9 vs 14 mg). The safety profile of 2G oral semaglutide was consistent with 1G oral semaglutide.ConclusionsThe 2G oral semaglutide formulation was confirmed as bioequivalent to 1G oral semaglutide, with no new safety concerns identified.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05227196.
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to assess and compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties following a single subcutaneous injection of epoetin alfa (Eporon®) with those of the comparator (Eprex®) in healthy male subjects.Subjects and methodsA randomized, double-blind, two-sequence, crossover study was conducted. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a single dose, that is, 4,000 IU, of the test or comparator epoetin alfa. After 4 weeks, all subjects received the alternative formulation. The primary PK parameters, maximum observed concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf), were calculated with the serum erythropoietin (EPO) concentrations from blood samples collected for 144 h after dosing. The reticulocyte, hematocrit, hemoglobin and red blood cell counts were measured up to 312 h as PD markers. The primary PD parameters, maximum observed effect (Emax) and area under the effect curve (AUEC), were obtained from the baseline-corrected reticulocyte count. The serum EPO concentration and the reticulocyte count were used to assess the concentration-response relationship. The tolerability and immunogenicity profiles were assessed together.ResultsForty-two subjects completed the study. The mean EPO concentration-time profiles were comparable between the two formulations. The geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of the Cmax and AUCinf were 0.908 (0.843-0.978) and 1.049 (0.999-1.101), respectively, both of which were within the regulatory range of 0.80-1.25. Additionally, the PD and tolerability profiles were similar between the two formulations. The time-matched serum EPO concentration and PD markers presented a counterclockwise hysteresis, suggesting a time delay between the measured concentration and the response. Both formulations were well tolerated, and production of anti-drug antibodies was not observed.ConclusionThe two epoetin alfa formulations had similar PK, PD and tolerability profiles. Furthermore, both formulations had a similar time-matched serum EPO concentration and erythropoietic response profile. Thus, the two formulations are expected to be used interchangeably in clinical settings.
Project description:IntroductionTo help prevent febrile neutropenia, pegfilgrastim-cbqv (UDENYCA®; Coherus BioSciences), a pegfilgrastim (NEULASTA®; Amgen) biosimilar, is administered 24-96 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Delivery of pegfilgrastim-cbqv using an on-body injector (OBI) provides an alternative method of administration, affording options in drug delivery. This study aimed to establish pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence and assess the safety of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using an OBI compared with a prefilled syringe (PFS).MethodsIn this open-label, two-period crossover study, healthy adult male participants (N = 189) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pegfilgrastim-cbqv 6 mg subcutaneously using an OBI (n = 92) or a PFS (n = 95) in period 1 and then an injection via the other method in period 2. Primary PK end points were area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity, area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration, and maximum plasma concentration. Secondary PD end points, safety, immunogenicity, and tolerability were also assessed.ResultsThe 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios for the PK and PD end points fell within the predetermined range (80-125%), indicating PK and PD bioequivalence between pegfilgrastim-cbqv OBI and pegfilgrastim-cbqv PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 87.8% and 75.8% of participants in the OBI and PFS groups, respectively. Most TEAEs were musculoskeletal effects. The most common OBI-related TEAE was injection site erythema (31.7%), which was mild, transient, and self-limiting. The incidence of treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies (ADAs) was similar between the OBI and PFS. ADAs had no apparent impact on PK, PD, or safety. Neutralizing antibodies were not detected in any participant.ConclusionsResults of the study showed PK and PD bioequivalence of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using OBI compared with PFS. OBI and PFS administration had similar safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles. No unexpected safety signals were identified. Graphical Abstract available for this article.
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the bioequivalence, safety, and tolerability of Chinese- and French-manufactured Glucophage® immediate-release (GIR) tablets under fasted and fed conditions in healthy volunteers. A bioequivalence study was proposed to support the manufacturing transfer.MethodsThis was an open-label, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive the test product (one 500 mg GIR tablet manufactured in China) or reference product (one 500 mg GIR tablet manufactured in France). The primary study endpoint was the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last sampling time (AUCt) and maximum observed concentration (Cmax).ResultsIn total, 96 subjects were screened and 44 subjects were randomly assigned to treatment (fasted group, 26 subjects; fed group, 18 subjects). All 44 subjects received the study drug, completed the study, and were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety analysis sets. Under fasted or fed conditions, the mean AUCt and Cmax (primary PK parameters) were comparable between the test and reference products. Point estimates for both parameters were close to 100% and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals were within the specified 80-125% bioequivalence boundary. There were no hypoglycemia-related adverse events (AEs) in either treatment group. All AEs in the present study were mild in severity.ConclusionsBioequivalence between the test and reference GIR tablets was demonstrated under fasted and fed conditions and both were safe and well tolerated.Clinical trials registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifying number NCT03393208.
Project description:These gene expression profiles were measured to create a broad and balanced control for any project that examines gene expression changes in men exposed to a defined stimulus (see series 5105). Keywords: gene expression profiles of healthy males
Project description:Objective: The aim of the study was to explore the association of pharmacokinetic variability and pharmacogenomics with the bioequivalence of orally administered gefitinib (Iressa®, AstraZeneca) provided by three sponsors in healthy subjects. Methods: The study designs were randomized, open-label, and two-period crossover studies in both fasting and fed healthy subjects. In one fasting study, the sample size was enlarged from 30 to 60 for the failing study. Each study subject received a 250-mg gefitinib tablet with a 21-day washout. The plasma concentrations were measured using LC-MS/MS, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by noncompartmental methods. Genetic analyses of CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and CYP2D6 alleles were carried out by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results: Two hundred and sixty healthy male subjects were enrolled. The median maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) was 4-5 h, and the mean elimination half-life (t1/2) was 18-26 h. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) increased but Tmax and t1/2 were unaffected by the intake of high-fat food. Three fed and two fasting studies achieved a plausible bioequivalence. The intake of high-fat food decreased the intra-subject variability significantly. In addition, CYP2D6 was associated with gefitinib exposure and may contribute to the high inter-subject variability, but it did not influence the bioequivalence result. Conclusions: Gefitinib is well tolerated, and the bioequivalence is easier to achieve under fed conditions compared to fasting conditions. The 90% confidence interval (CI) of geometric mean ratio (GMR) can be narrowed when the sample size is enlarged without changing the formulation-related technology.